Ansaldo V Sheriff Case: Petitioners Responden Ts
Ansaldo V Sheriff Case: Petitioners Responden Ts
Ansaldo V Sheriff Case: Petitioners Responden Ts
ISSUE
WON a joint account of a husband and wife is liable for the payment of the obligation of the husband? NO
HELD
It is undisputed that the sum of P636.80 which is now in controversy was derived from the paraphernal
property of Margarita. It therefore belongs to the conjugal partnership of the said spouses.
The provision of article 1408 CC to the effect that the conjugal partnership shall be liable for all the
debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the husband must be understood as subject to the
qualifications established by article 1386 of the same Code, which provides that:
The fruits of the paraphernal property cannot be subject to the payment of personal obligations of the husband,
unless it be proved that such obligation were productive of some benefit to the family.
The meaning of this article is clarified by reference to the first paragraph of the preceding article 1385
which reads as follows:
The fruit of the paraphernal property form part of the assets of the conjugal partnership and are subject to the
payment of the debts and expenses of the spouses.
Construing the two article together, it seems clear that the fruits of the paraphernal property which
become part of the assets of the conjugal partnership are not liable for the payment of personal obligations of
the husband, unless it be proved that such obligations were productive of some benefit to the family.
There was no attempt to prove that the obligations contracted by Angel produced any benefit to the
family. There is also no merit to the contention that half of the P636.80 belongs to Angel and can be levied,
because the right of one spouse to one-half of the property of the conjugal partnership does not vest until the
dissolution of the marriage when the conjugal partnership is dissolved.